Arrrr, Jim Lad, now free from the terrors of piracy on the Spanish Main, kindly offers to us his life experience as a Cabin Boy, and the grim effects that naval discipline has had upon him.   "Arrr Jim Lad, and it is ye who shall be inside the cask tonight!"    Such dreadful happenings can turn a lad's head inside out for the rest of his natural, you know

So, may I try to get some perspective into a topic that seems to be unable to be part of a rational discussion?   

The first thing I see is that the word spanking is used to describe a number of different activities, with the slapping of buttocks as the common theme.   For consenting adults, it may be part of sexual activity; for teenagers a fun way to mark a birthday; for members of a formal or informal association it may be a hazing ritual; and it is used to define a means of discipline.   When a word can assume so many shades of meaning, it is natural that debate about it become confused and, from some quarters, another way of yelling at the world at large.

Secondly, some adults abuse children.   Spanking is one of their methods of abuse; but not the only one.   They will abuse kids by any means available, and, I think, taking away one of those means is not going to make their kids' lives anymore more wholesome.

And thirdly, because some adults get a sexual kick out of spanking, that alone makes spanking a very bad thing for good people to participate in. (However, it would seem that every form of punishment ever invented in the history of mankind is a source of sexual gratification for someone somewhere.   I vote we ignore the sexual implications on this thread, and discuss them elsewhere at another time)

So ...

Can we agree that understanding that 'actions have consequences' is not an inherited trait: and that it is indeed learned?    Moreover, that it is learned at a very early age?   From experience, from trial and error, that this action (touching the flame of a candle) has a bad consequence (pain) while this action (eating candy) has a pleasant consequence (sweet taste in mouth)

Learning simple cause and effect rarely need a teacher.   But letting a child burn her fingers on a candle for her to learn that the consequence is unpleasant... well, that is probably is outside the wishes of most parents.   Therefore, sometimes the unpleasant consequence has to be supplied by a parent, teacher or other responsible adult entrusted with ensuring the safety of the child.

Can we also agree that not all cause and effects are simple?   For example, if a child takes another child's toy, the simple consequence is possession of the toy.   Understanding that the sorrow of the child who lost the toy is a bad consequence may not occur, or be of concern, to the child that took it.   There may be second and third levels of consequence beyond the intellectual grasp of the young.

Can we all agree that teaching children of all the consequences of an action relies in part in reasoning, and in part of correcting the child when that reasoning fails?   And that all the corrective measures (time out, grounding, early bed etc etc) are designed to be unpleasant is some way for the child?   The simple (pleasurable) consequence of an action has been replaced by a more immediate and understandable unpleasant consequence.   

The question of whether non-abusive corporal punishment is a valid method of correcting a child should be a simple one.   Does the long term benefit to the child, and indeed to society as a whole, outweigh the short term and mild pain inflicted by the spanking?
If you believe this to be true, I can debate with you where you think the benefits are, and if you think it false, I can debate with you on why the thought of short term pain gives you so much distress.

But if all you bring to the debate is the fact, say, that you hated being a cabin boy on the Hispanola, then we shall never be able to agree on pretty much anything.